muddysmind.com

Yeah, I've had similar thoughts about this. I do realize that she *is* very well greaving. My personal first thought when I heard about this story was that she's angry and she needs someone to blame. Understandable.

"But If I would have died in battle (not to mention; as a volunteer) and my mother did what this lady has, I would feel disgraced."

That was actually my second thought as well. When I heard how she wanted to know why Bush had "killed her son", I thought, 'ok....her son volunteered for service. We have no draft so he obviously signed up for the military of his own volition. He gave his life fighting to ensure the freedoms of others. How does she think she's bringing honor to her son by (whether she realizes it or not) making him look as if he were naive and stupid to the facts and the realities of war.

yea, I was reading some of that tonight, very interesting.

Curious how much the ACLU, or other fringe Anti-America group is paying her.

why would you feel disgraced if that was your mother? [Well i know why You would, but thats beyond the point]

what is she doing that is wrong or disgraceful? did she say she hates bush? All she is doing is asking for a reason her son died. bush doesnt have to go out with the cameras, he can meet with her in private.

maybe he doesnt have an excuse for why her son died. i mean it was a Noble cause, it was Right then and its Right now? isnt that waht bush has been saying? hell, why doesnt bush write her a letter? [or one of his staffers]

i always find it amazing how you people question the legitimacy of this mother. i guess because she isnt quiet and accepts any spiel bush puts forth, then she is a commie.

this lady just wonders for What Greater cause her son died. Because she questions the Administrations policy, she is Now an Anti American? she is a Mole payed by the ACLU?

this lady is just the tip of the iceberg. public sentiment is already against the war, bushs Inaction just makes him look even more inept.

you know its funny, i saw bush apologizing for the death of petter jennings saying how he was a great journalist and all that blah blah, yet this guy cant take 5 mins for the mother who sacrificed her son?

at what point will you people wake up? when we reach 5K, 10K? maybe only 2K dead?

i never understand this way of thinking that states, "we have to let more troops be killed in iraq, otherwise the dead ones would have died in vain." i just cant understand that way of thinking.

"at what point will you people wake up? when we reach 5K, 10K? maybe only 2K dead?"

At what point will YOU wake up! Look, you think we're wacked in some (alot of ways) and we think you're wacked in some (alot of ways). That's ok...that's just one example of what free will is all about. Having our right to our own opinions.

Look, if my child was killed in war, would I be devistated? Definately. No question. But I would feel proud of them knowing that they gave their life so that someone else could be saved.

Look, as a mother, I can understand to a degree what she must be going through. You carry this child in your womb. You feel their every movement. Even if someone has the child for you, you are the one who is there through the sickness and health, the good times and tragedies, the victories and the defeats. And to loose them....no parent should have to bury their child.

I don't think this mother is Anti-anything (as of yet). Like I stated, I think she's angry and just needs someone to blame. But she makes her son sound as if he had NO idea what so ever of the situation he was getting himself into. She acts like when he signed up for service that he had no inkling that his decision to volunteer for service could possibly lead him to being sent to war. She talks as if her son were blind sighted by were he was lead with his life. I'm sure he knew very well what his government expected of him when he signed on for duty. And if it were me in that situation, I would hope that I would rather give my child credit for that decision - through their death instead of acting as if they had a mind of ignorance and stupidity towards the whole situation.

Looks to me that woman likes to attract the media.
How could she be so stupid as praising the US president in the first place ?
If I died in a war wages by my country I would like my mother to examine evidence first and not have changing equally extremist opinions in order to attract media attention.

What's wrong in Iraq is not the number of US casualities. US soldiers are the agressors here.
What's wrong is the number of iraki civilian deaths, around 20 000 directly related to the conflict, and around 100 000 if mortality rates are compared (that last number from a Lancet research is highly discussed).
What would be absolutely wrong is if Iraqis start a civil war.
It's not to say that the USA are 100 % responsible for what goes on in Iraq now, but the thing is they thought they could replace Saddam Hussein and do a better job for iraqis (bring democracy).

There were no WMD's in Iraq.
If democracy is brought in Iraq, then the US soldiers will have accomplished a very important mission and people will not have died in vain.
If it is not and civil war rages on, all the campaign will have been a disaster. Just like the vietnam war.
(Remember, the USA faked an attack from the viets in order to justify their bombings of north vietnam, they killed millions of vietnamis, there are still people in Vietnam suffering from the chimical weapons used at the time to destroy the vegetation, 40 000 US soldiers died, and it brought nothing to the vietnamese)

Quote "Looks to me that woman likes to attract the media.
How could she be so stupid as praising the US president in the first place ?
If I died in a war wages by my country I would like my mother to examine evidence first and not have changing equally extremist opinions in order to attract media attention."

See, I knew I could not give up on you.
You do have some commonsense. :-)

I know. I almost fell out of my seat when I seen that DF and I agree on something.

But then he has to blow it with "There were no WMD's in Iraq."

The more acurate statement would be "There ARE no WMD's in Iraq. They were moved to Syria just before the war, just like Saddams Air Force was during the first gulf war."

Thats more like it.

mooseboy84 wrote:

"you know its funny, i saw bush apologizing for the death of petter jennings saying how he was a great journalist and all that blah blah, yet this guy cant take 5 mins for the mother who sacrificed her son?"

If my facts are still straight, Junior has yet to even attend a funeral. Why would he have time for some kid's mom? He's on vacation(again)after all....more time spent on vacation at this point, incidentally, than any American president.

"at what point will you people wake up? when we reach 5K, 10K? maybe only 2K dead?"

When the war comes home. And, it will.

cwilli wrote:

"The more acurate statement would be "There ARE no WMD's in Iraq. They were moved to Syria just before the war, just like Saddams Air Force was during the first gulf war."

I can't believe you're still hanging on to this one........but I'm trying. Welcome back anyhow.

yeah. nuclear weapons, drones, chemical weapons and everything they all went to syriah, because everybody knows they have wings, like the aircrafts. And they did it secretly also. And of course the US inspectors did not mention it. They said the US intelligence were wrong in the first place. But may be, who knows, those inspectors are infiltrated by communist, or trying to make friends with old europe.
And let's not forget that most of the saddam air force that flew into Iran were lousy plances in the first place, they were not match for the standard equipment of the US, Israeli or even French airforce.

Iraq was proved not a threat in 1991 (in 1990 the IRaqi army was called the fifth of the world). It was defeated with close to no casualty in a war so easy that it looked shamefull (like using a bomb to kill a moskito).
Only fools could believe that Iraq in 2003 was a threat after 12 years of embargo, a war and UN inspections.
Most of the officials advocating the danger of iraq did not believe a single word of their own words. These were utter lies.
Their aim was to wage a war in iraq in order to :
??
- Control oil fields
- Bring democracy
Probably both, as a democratic country was thought to bring stability in the region and become a long term friend of western countries (and the USA in the first place)
So here s the summary :
either you believed the lies on WMD and you were a fool
Or you did not.
If you did not, which I hope (you're still pretending), I hope you have a commitment to bring that democracy working, because the present mess is the result of your arrogant-courageous (depend on how you look at them) policies.

That's the bottom line, the USA went there alone against international legality, against common sense, and based on lies, they now have the very important task of making it work or fear losing all credibility. As they say, the world is watching.
If it works out, then success will be great, all will benefit and the USA in the first place. Only al qaeda will lose and some regional dictators.
IF it does not, the failure will be huge, all will lose, and the USA in the first place. Only al qaeda may win, and that's not even sure as it may be become blamed too for chaos.

BTW thanks to the "liberal" media, I heard that woman here this morning on my french radio.
YEAh folks. Along with polls saying that the US citizens were growing tired of the iraki war.
I did not appreaciate her comments, especially knowing how she had been pro bush some months before (thanks to your post).
Democracy is a just cause. The USA (and all colonial countries) have embraced it only to rarely, and do still fight it on too many occasions. So it is important to show support for this one.
Oil is at 63 by the way, Iran is going to build its bomb, I'm not sure anybody wants to have 120 dollar barrel of oil, because Iraq has turned into a civil war.